Schumer's Efforts on Nuclear Detection Research

I think this is a future smoking gun. Senator Schumer has been on this from the beginning.

The links do not remain active, as the Congressional Record is constantly updated. But all of this is in the Bill Summary's of Schumer's Ammendment 3580 to the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Just go to Thomas and look it up.

Basically, Schumer wants $150 million of HomSec's budget specifically earmarked to nuclear detection research - and it gets thrown out on a techincality, then the fix is voted down by Republicans.

Some of Schumer's highlights:

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I make this point. We were here 2 years ago, and a year ago, and my good friend from Mississippi, with the same eloquence, made the
same argument: The amount of money is the amount of money we have; yes, we could double it, but let's leave it up to the wisdom of the Department and the
committee.

We did that, and in the last year, we have had no money spent on developing better nuclear detection devices. That is a cheap shot? In all due respect to my colleague from Mississippi, and I would say in all due respect this could happen in New York and it could happen in Houston, TX, and blow over to Mississippi--this could happen anywhere in the country, and I am sure just as I would want to protect the citizens of every other State, so would my colleague from Mississippi.

This is hardly an urban issue. Chernobyl did not occur in an urban--it may have been in an urban setting, but it ruined millions of acres of farmland, which I know my colleague cares a great deal about, as do I. We are asking not for $33 billion, although maybe that would be spent. If I were the President, I would spend a lot of time figuring out what we needed and then spend it. I would not just ask for extra money.

This is a small amount of money, $150 million, specifically directed to nuclear security, when in the past we have not done it. And my colleague argues we have enough money and leave it to the wisdom of the Department to do. By my good friend's logic, we should not have a Congress. Let's have one broad allocation for homeland security and let them do what they want. And let's not even look, if they do not do something we all think is necessary, and come back and say let them do it again.

This is not a typical request. This is not something that just benefits one specific area or one specific company. This is dealing with one of the greatest dangers America faces, and spending a small amount of money after we have learned that Homeland Security will not do it themselves seems to me to be a reasonable request. I greatly understand my colleague's nose-in-the-tent argument: If I am for this, well, I have to be for it for so many other things. But I ask him to look at the substance of this amendment and its cost, and I cannot think of an argument against it.

Yes, there is $1.2 billion for all kinds of threats. This is the greatest threat we face, perhaps, and there is no specific money that says we have to do this. In the past, when we have had these broad categories, again Homeland Security has done virtually nothing. Why, I don't know. I have asked them. They say: Yes, we are working on it, just as my good friend from Mississippi has said, but nothing happens. So we wait another year and another year. I hope we do not have to wait until something terrible happens. That is not what anybody wants. To say that Congress should not be modifying what the administration has done says we should not have a Congress, and to say that this amendment is either frivolous or regional or unnecessary does not make any sense to me.

If my colleague could assure me that the Homeland Security Department would do this out of the existing allocation, I would say, sure, but we had that kind of assurance 2 years ago. My friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, said to me: You are right. Let us make sure we get this done. Well, it has not been done. So I would simply say, I know the committee has labored under what the administration has sent them on the issue, for instance, of rail security. Where the Rail Association says we need $6 billion to thoroughly protect our rails, the administration asked for zero, and the committee comes up with $150 million. That is a lot better than zero but is not close to what we need.

I say to my friend from Mississippi, the bottom line is, my premise is we are not doing enough, we are not spending enough dollars, and we should have a significant increase. When we came and found we needed $25 billion more for the war in Iraq, nobody said, well, we could double the number, let's not. Nor should they have. Well, it is the same thing when it comes to homeland security. The difference is, it is not a day-to-day issue. Nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, thank God, and then something terrible happens and we say, why did we not do it?

And he continues:

The devices that really work well and can detect radiation far enough away and do it well and sensitively are not yet developed. Scientists say that with a couple of years of research they can do it. They right now detect small amounts of nuclear material in cyclotrons and atom smashers at a great distance, but those devices are too large and delicate. They can't be bounced around very much to work. All it takes is spending some dollars, maybe $150 million, maybe $250 million--it sounds like a lot, but it is not in terms of the $1.7 trillion budget--and then installing them in the ways that I have stated. I have tried for 3 years to get this body to do it. A few years ago we accepted an amendment that would have at least put in $150 million for these devices. But when it came back from conference, only $35 million was left. Guess what. That was in the 2003 budget. They still haven't spent it. Isn't that amazing? It is $35 million to start on this research, and Homeland Security still has not let the contracts.

What is going on here? This is a huge catastrophe that could, God forbid, happen, and we are just asleep at the switch.

45 Republicans and Zell Miller voted against suspending Budget Act rules (60 are needed) to allow the extra appropriation. Four senators, Akaka, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards were absent, but it wouldn't have made the difference. The ammendment was then rejected by the chair on a point of order.

The worrisome thing for me as a Republican is not that the R's didn't have an argument for not wanting to give Schumer his money - that could be just a "sounded like pork to me" situation - it's far more troubling to me that they didn't have an explanation for why they're not allocating funds or doing anything to address this critical issue.